asked JO1 Robles "nandyan na si Warden (Chief Inspector Quinones)?", to which the latter repliedCIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, "tulog na si sir." JO1 Robles observed that JO1 Pascual was hiding something bulky in his uniform.8vs.ARLIC ALMOJUELA, Respondent. In his defense, SJO2 Almojuela asserted that JO1 Loyola and JO1 Pascual went out of the jailPERLAS-BERNABE,* compound without his permission. He also testified seeing JO1 Pascual and Lao together at around 12 DECISION midnight, while Lao was using JO1 Pascual’s celfone.9 Lao’s use of JO1 Pascual’s celfone wasBRION, J.: corroborated by SJO1 Robles’s testimony, who also said that JO1 Loyola’s phone kept on ringing orWe resolve the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) appeal by certiorari seeking the reversal of the Court alerting for text messages. It was not clear from SJO1 Robles’s testimony if JO1 Loyola was with JO1of Appeals' (CA) amended decision1 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106258. The assailed decision partly granted Pascual and Lao at that time.the respondent SJO2 Arlic Almojuela's (SJO2 Almojuela) Motion for Reconsideration from the CA’soriginal decision,2 affirming its finding that SJO2 Almojuela is guilty of gross misconduct. Roughly twenty minutes after Lao was seen using JO1 Pascual’s celfone, JO1 Loyola ordered inmate Cabidoy to go to sleep, while JO1 Pascual took the keys to the jail cells from Cabidoy.10Factual Antecedents At around 1:15 a.m., inmate Juan Mogado, Lao’s former cellmate, saw Lao for the last time, when theThe present administrative case, filed against Desk Officer/ Supervisor SJO2 Almojuela, sprang from the latter boughtP20.00 worth of Marlborro cigarettes from the store he was tending.11escape of a detention prisoner in the Makati City Jail. Fifteen minutes later, at about 1:30 a.m., SJO1 Robles testified that JO1 Loyola took the gate keys forTony Lao’s escape the vehicular and visitor entrance and told him "Sige pahinga ka muna, mamaya ko na ibigay sa iyo mga 3:00."12At six’o clock in the morning of December 13, 2003, Ding Cang Hui a.k.a. Tony Lao / Tony Ling (Lao), aChinese inmate charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act) was Between 1 to 1:30 a.m., Joan Panayaman, Almojuela’s househelp, saw JO1 Loyola and JO1 Pascualdiscovered to have escaped from his cell at the Makati City Jail. The following officers of the Bureau of together while she was heading for the comfort room. As she approached them, Panayaman overheardJail Management and Penology (BJMP) – National Capital Region Office (NCRO) were on third shift JO1 Pascual talking over the cellphone saying "Bago namin ilabas ito, magdagdag muna kayo ng isangcustodial duty when Lao escaped: J/C INSP Pepe Quinones (J/C INSP Quinones); SJO2 Arvie Aquino milyon." JO1 Pascual then toned down his voice and entered his room, while JO1 Loyola walkedJMP (SJO2 Aquino), officer of the day; SJO2 Arlic Almojuela JMP (SJO2 Almojuela), desk officer / towards the jail area. She went up to SJO2 Almojuela’s room, but found it locked. While goingsupervisor; SJO1 Jose Rodney Lagahit JMP (SJO1 Lagahit), desk reliever; JO1 Eric Manuel Palileo downstairs, she saw JO1 Loyola walking towards the gate with a man; a few minutes later, JO1 Loyola(JO1 Palileo), duty nurse; JO1 Rommel Robles JMP (JO1 Robles), gater; JO1 Manuel Loyola, Jr. (JO1 returned without the man.13Loyola), gater; JO1 Reynaldo Pascual JMP (JO1 Pascual), cell guard and JO1 Jaime Ibarra (JO1Ibarra), roving guard.3 According to SJO2 Almojuela, he went to his barracks at around 1:20 a.m. and returned at around 1:30 a.m.14This is contradicted by SJO1 Lagahit’s testimony, which asserts that SJO2 Almojuela left the frontBased on testimonies cited in Civil Service Resolution No. 0807014 and the Court of Appeals’ decision, desk at around 1 a.m. and returned only at 3 a.m.15 At around the same time, inmate Jerwin Mingoythe facts outlined below led to Lao’s escape. (Mingoy) testified that SJO2 Almojuela ordered him to get food at cell number 8 and set the table for the 3rd shift personnel.16 It must be noted, however, that SJO1 Loyola saw the members of the 3rd shiftAt about 11:00 p.m., SJO2 Aquino made a headcount of the inmates in the Makati City Jail, ensured personnel take their meal some time between 12 a.m. to 1 a.m.,17 while inmate Cabidoy cooked theirevery cell was padlocked, and instructed SJO2 Almojuela (the desk officer on duty) to dispatch the meal at around 11:45 a.m.18personnel to their respective areas of responsibilities.5 Between 2:00 to 3:00 a.m., JO1 Loyola said he saw that the desk area was unmanned and the controlThirty minutes later, inmate Florencio Jacinto (Jacinto) saw Cabidoy, an inmate charged with opening gate of the detention cells open; he then gave the keys in his possession to JO1 Robles and went to theand closing the cell gates, open Cell Number 8. Lao came out and Jacinto never saw him return to his infirmary.19 JO1 Loyola did not explain his whereabouts between 1:00 to 2:00 a.m.cell.6 SJO1 Lagahit testified that he conducted a roving inspection at around 2:30 a.m., and saw JO1 LoyolaSoon after Jacinto saw Lao walk out of Cell Number 8, JO1 Loyola (the gater at the Main Gate) saw Lao going to the infirmary where JO1 Palileo was assigned. He also saw SJO1 Pascual sitting in front of theat the front desk talking to SJO2 Almojuela and JO1 Pascual. According to JO1 Loyola, SJO2 Almojuela gate of Cell Number 8, where Lao was billeted.20 By 2:45 a.m., JO1 Robles said he woke up to find thatordered him and JO1 Pascual to buy food outside the jail premises.7 SJO1 Robles, another gater at the the keys earlier taken by JO1 Loyola were already on his belly.21main gate, saw the two leave the compound at around 11:45PM. SJO1 Robles then saw Lao, Cabidoyand another inmate conversing at the Desk Area. SJO1 Robles were about to approach the three At around 3 a.m., inmate Mingoy saw Lao talking to JO1 Palileo at the Desk Area.22 By 3:30 a.m., SJO2inmates to caution them, but upon seeing SJO1 Lagahit at the desk area, he went back to his post. JO1 Aquino left the female brigade area; while on her way to the Desk Officer’s lounge, she saw thePascual and JO1 Loyola returned to the compound at around 12:30 a.m.; upon arrival, JO1 Loyola following: (1) SJO2 Almojuela sleeping on a folding chair; (2) JO1 Palileo sleeping in the infirmary; (3)SJO1 Lagahit watching TV; 4) both control gates 1 and 2 were open; and (5) JO1 Pascual was standing SJO2 Almojuela’s next recourse was a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. He assailed theinside control gate number 2.23 CSC’s decision for the following reasons: First, SJO2 Almojuela claimed to have been denied due process because he was not accorded the benefit of a full-blown trial. Second, SJO2 Almojuela assertedBy 5:30 a.m., several BJMP officers saw Chief Inspector Quinones leave the jail compound aboard his that he was denied equal protection of the laws because lesser penalties were imposed on his co-car. News broke out in the jail facility that Lao was missing at around the same time.24 Lao surreptitiously workers. Third, SJO2 Almojuela argued that the evidence on record was insufficient to support hisleft the Makati City Jail and brought along with him his possessions, including a trophy he won at a dismissal from the service.32pingpong match inside the prison.25 The CA denied SJO2 Almojuela’s petition.33 According to the CA, SJO2 Almojuela was provided the dueTwo days after Lao’s escape, Supt. Edgar C. Bolcio, who replaced Chief Inspector Quinones, conducted process required in administrative proceedings when he was given the opportunity to answer thea search and inspection of the barracks of the jail personnel suspected to be involved in Lao’s escape. accusations against him. He was fully informed of the charges against him, and did file a counter-This resulted in the recovery of 10 keys from SJO2 Almojuela’s barracks, one of which matched the affidavit, motions for reconsideration, a notice of appeal, and a memorandum of appeal, where hepadlock of the main gate.26 narrated his side of the story.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) subsequently conducted polygraph tests on JO1 Pascual and Further, SJO2 Almojuela’s claim that he was denied equal protection of the laws because his co-workersSJO2 Almojuela. According to the NBI, JO1 Pascual and SJO2 Almojuela’s responses were "indicative were sentenced to lesser penalties has no legal basis. Citing Abakada Guro Partylist v. Purisima,34 theof deceptions occurred at relevant questions". When confronted and interrogated by the NBI, the two CA pointed out that the equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the samecould not satisfactorily explain the polygraph tests’ results.27 conditions and among persons similarly situated; when persons are under different factual circumstance, they may be treated differently.The BJMP’s Investigation Report In this case, the CA held that SJO2 Almojuela was handed the proper penalty, because next only to the warden, he was the highest-ranking officer in the Makati City Jail at the time Lao escaped. It wasA BJMP Investigation Report conducted on the incident concluded that SJO2 Almojuela and the rest of incumbent upon him to oversee the whole jail compound’s security, and ensure that all jail personnelthe jail officers on third shift custodial duty all colluded to facilitate Lao’s getaway.28 Based on the report’s performed their respective tasks. His failure to do so deserved a greater penalty than those who wererecommendation, the Intelligence and Investigation Division of the BJMP filed an administrative under his command.complaint against the abovementioned BJMP/NCRO members.29 In Administrative Case No. 04-11,CESO IV Director Arturo Walit, the BJMP hearing officer, rendered his decision dated December 13,2005,30 finding the following liable: Lastly, the CA gave no credit to SJO2 Almojuela’s claim that the lack of a hearing and the BJMP’s bias against him rendered his dismissal illegal. It held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of Director Alit’s duty as disciplining authority should prevail over SJO2 Almojuela’s bare and unsupportedFirst, SJO2 Almojuela and JO1 Loyola were found guilty of Grave Misconduct and were meted the allegations. Further, Director Alit’s decision was based on substantial evidence – testimonies of SJO2penalty of dismissal from the service. Almojuela’s colleagues on duty that night showed the following laxities in the implementation of jail rules:

Second, SJO2 Aquino, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Robles were found guilty of Less Serious Neglect of Duty (1) SJO2 Almojuela was seen sleeping in a folding chair;and were meted the penalty of Suspension with forfeiture of salaries and allowances for six months. (2) Control gates 1 and 2 were open;Third, CINSP Quinones was found guilty of Neglect of Duty and was meted the penalty of Fineequivalent to four months salary; he had since retired from the service. (3) SJO2 Almojuela and JO1 Pascual were seen conversing with Lao at the desk area;Fourth, JO1 Pascual, while not absolved of administrative liability, could no longer be penalized as theadministrative proceedings began long after his separation from the service. (4) SJO2 Almojuela ordered JO1 Loyola and JO1 Pascual to go out of the compound and to buy food;

Fifth, JO1 Palileo and JO1 Ibarra were exonerated. (5) Lao and the other inmates were seen loitering around the jail premises when all of them should have been inside their respective cells;SJO2 Almojuela and JO1 Loyola moved for the reconsideration of Director Walit’s decision, which thelatter denied for lack of merit in a Joint Resolution dated June 21, 2006. SJO2 Almojuela then appealed (6) The recovered keys from SJO2 Almojuela’s makeshift cubicle fit the padlock in the main gate forhis conviction before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed Director Walit’s decision in its vehicles;Resolution No. 080701. The CSC subsequently denied SJO2 Almojuela’s motion for reconsideration.31 (7) Persons other than gatekeepers JO1 Robles and JO1 Loyola had access to the keys of theThe Appellate Court’s ruling respective gates assigned to them.The Appellate Court’s Amended Decision as he was not given the opportunity to submit his evidence and to present his witnesses while the prosecution was allowed to adduce its evidence under a trial-type arrangement.The appellate court partially granted35 SJO2 Almojuela’s motion for reconsideration, and lowered hisliability from grave to simple misconduct. Applying Section 54(b), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on IssuesAdministrative Cases in Civil Service,36 SJO2 Almojuela was meted the penalty of three monthssuspension as there was neither any attendant mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. The parties’ arguments, properly joined, present to us the following issues:

Citing Civil Service Commission v. Lucas,37 the CA held on reconsideration that misconduct, to be 1) Whether the CSC’s petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed for failure to comply withconsidered grave, must involve the additional elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law or Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;disregard of established rules; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. 2) Whether the CSC’s petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed as the CSC is not the properThe CA found no corrupt motive or willful intent on SJO2 Almojuela’s part to violate the BJMP Rules and party to appeal the CA’s amended decision;Regulations. No clear evidence was presented to show that SJO2 Almojuela was directly involved in theprison break, nor was it proven that he benefited from it. SJO2 Almojuela likewise did not willfully triflewith the BJMP Rules and Regulations. While Lao was allowed to leave his cell, he was accompanied by 3) Whether SJO2 Almojuela had been deprived of due process when he was not allowed to present histhe roving guard, JO1 Pascual, at all times. Considering the presumption that JO1 Pascual was regularly evidence and witnesses during the BJMP investigation;performing his duty, SJO2 Almojuela had no reason to believe that Lao would escape because he wasunder the jail guard’s watch. Further, SJO2 Almojuela was seen sleeping on duty only once; since SJO2 4) Whether SJO2 Almojuela connived with JO1 Loyola and JO1 Pascual to facilitate Lao’s escape fromAquino and SJO1 Lagahit (who were with him) were awake at that time, his lapse could not be the Makati City Jail; andconsidered to be sufficiently grave or serious to warrant his dismissal from the service. 5) Whether SJO2 Almojuela’s actions constitute gross misconduct.The Present Petition The Court’s RulingThe CSC asserts in its present petition that the CA should not have had disturbed the CSC’s findings, asconclusions of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise are generally afforded We first rule on the procedural issues SJO2 Almojuela posed.great weight by the courts.38 SJO2 Almojuela’s conviction is supported by evidence on record, andsufficiently satisfied the substantial evidence standard. Taken together, the testimonies submitted duringthe BJMP investigation establish that SJO2 Almojuela connived with JO1 Pascual, JO1 Loyola and Lao The CSC’s petition failed to comply withto facilitate the latter’s escape. Even assuming that SJO2 Almojuela had no knowledge of the plan, hecould have easily discovered and prevented the escape had he been awake and alert. Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

According to the CSC, a jail guard’s act of sleeping while at his post on night-shift duty constitutes grave As SJO2 Almojuela correctly pointed out, the CSC’s petition failed to comply with Section 4, Rule 45 ofmisconduct because it is a flagrant disregard of BJMP’s policy that a jail officer should stay vigilant the Rules of Court,41 when its certificate against forum shopping was signed by Associate Solicitorduring his shift. In SJO2 Almojuela’s case, this was aggravated by his rank – next only to the warden, he General Sharon E. Millan-Decano; it was not signed by the CSC nor by the BJMP’s authorizedwas the highest-ranking jail officer on duty. As shift supervisor, it was incumbent upon him to be awake representatives.at all times to fully oversee the jail compound’s security and to ensure that all the other jail officers wereperforming their tasks. The consequences of this mistep are prejudicial to the party filing the pleading. Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review that does not comply with the required certificationLastly, the CSC pointed out that Grave Misconduct could not be mitigated by the accused’s first time against forum shopping is a ground for its dismissal.42 This certification must be executed by theoffender status or by his length of service. Section 52, Rule IV the of Civil Service Commission petitioner, not by counsel. It is the petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional servicesMemorandum Circular No. 19-9939 provides that the first offense constituting grave misconduct already have been retained only for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether he or it actuallywarrants the penalty of dismissal. filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case. Hence, a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification. It is equivalent to non-compliance with the requirement under SectionIn his Comment,40 SJO2 Almojuela reiterated the line the Court of Appeals took in its amended decision, 4, Rule 45 and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.43and additionally raised the following arguments: first, the certificate of non-forum shopping, instead ofhaving been signed by the CSC, was signed by the assistant solicitor general, in violation of the rule on In Pascual v. Beltran,44 we affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petition for certiorari before the appellatecertification against forum shopping; second, the CSC is not the proper party to appeal the CA’s court because it was the Solicitor General, not the petitioner, who signed the certification against forumdecision; and third, SJO2 Almojuela had been deprived of due process during the BJMP investigation, shopping.However, there have been instances when the demands of substantial justice convinced us to apply the have no way of ascertaining the accuracy of the OSG’s assertion without precise references in theRules liberally by way of compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement;45 the rule record of the case. Thus, unless equitable circumstances which are manifest from the record of a caseon certification against forum shopping, while obligatory, is not jurisdictional. Justifiable cirsumtances prevail, it becomes necessary for the concerned government agency or its authorized representatives tomay intervene and be recognized, leading the Court to relax the application of this rule.46 certify for non-forum shopping if only to be sure that no other similar case or incident is pending before any other court.51In People of the Philippines v. de Grano et. al.,47 for instance, we permitted the private prosecutor to signthe certification in behalf of his client who went into hiding after being taken out of the witness protection To be sure, there may be situations when the OSG would have difficulty in securing the signatures ofprogram. This is the case that the OSG invoked in the certification against forum shopping signed by government officials for the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping. But these situationsAssociate Solicitor Millan-Decano who stated in her footnote that "Pursuant to People v. de Grano (G.R. cannot serve as excuse for the OSG to wantonly undertake by itself the verification and certification ofNo. 167710, June 5, 2009), the handling lawyers of the OSG may sign verification and certificate of non- non-forum shopping. If the OSG is compelled by circumstances to verify and certify the pleading inforum shopping."48 behalf of a client agency, the OSG should at least endeavor to inform the courts of its reasons for doing so, beyond simply citing cases where the Court allowed the OSG to sign the certification. In Hon.A reading of People of the Philippines v. de Grano et. al., a decision from the Third Division of the Constantino-David et. al. v. Pangandaman-Gania, the Court dealt with this situation and enumerated theSupreme Court, shows that it cannot be used to support the OSG’s conclusion. following requirements before the OSG can undertake a non-forum shopping certifications as counsel of record for a client agency:De Grano affirms a long line of Supreme Court decisions where the Court allowed the liberal applicationof the rules on certification against forum shopping in the interest of substantial justice. But to merit the (a) allege under oath the circumstances that make signatures of the concerned officials impossible toCourt’s consideration, the petitioner(s) must show reasonable basis for its/their failure to personally sign obtain within the period for filing the initiatory pleading; (b) append to the petition or complaint suchthe certification. They must convince the Court that the petition’s outright dismissal would defeat the authentic document to prove that the party-petitioner or complainant authorized the filing of the petitionadministration of justice. One of the cases cited in Grano was City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. or complaint and understood and adopted the allegations set forth therein, and an affirmation that noEstrella, a case decided by the Second Division of this Court, which allowed the Solicitor General to sign action or claim involving the same issues has been filed or commenced in any court, tribunal or quasi-the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in a petition before the CA or with this Court. The judicial agency; and, (c) undertake to inform the court promptly and reasonably of any change in thedecision held that certification by the OSG constitutes substantial compliance with the Rules, considering stance of the client agency.52that the OSG is the legal representative of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and itsagencies and instrumentalities. Under these principles, the CSC’s petition for review on certiorari before this Court is defective for failure to attach a proper certification against forum shopping. In the certificate, the associate solicitor merelyIn Hon. Constantino-David et. al. v. Pangandaman-Gania,49 an En Banc decision, we clarified the stated that she has prepared and filed the petition in her capacity as the petition’s handling lawyer, andapplication of City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,50 and held that this case does not give the citing People v. Grano, claimed that the OSG’s handling lawyers are allowed to verify and sign theOSG the license to sign the certification against forum shopping in behalf of government agencies at all certificate of non-forum shopping. No explanation was given why the signatures of the CSC’s authorizedtimes. We explained that the reason we authorized the Solicitor General to sign the certification against representatives could not be secured.forum shopping is because it was then acting as a ‘People’s Tribune,’ an instance when the Solicitortakes a position adverse and contrary to the Government’s because it is incumbent upon him to present Despite this conclusion, we cannot turn a blind eye to the meritorious grounds that the CSC raised in itsto the Court what he considers would legally uphold government’s best interest, although the position petition, and to the reality that the administration of justice could be derailed by an overly stringentmay run counter to a client's position; in this case, the Solicitor General appealed the trial court’s order application of the rules. Under the present situation and in the exercise of our discretion, we resolve todespite the City Warden’s apparent acquiesance to it and in the process took a position contrary to the overlook the procedural defect in order to consider the case on the merits. We carefully note in doing thisCity Warden’s. that our action does not substantially affect the due process rights of the respondent, nor does it involve a jurisdictional infirmity that leaves the Court with no discretion except to dismiss the case before us.53 InThe rule is different when the OSG acts as a government agency’s counsel of record. It is necessary for other words, no mandatory duty on the part of the Court is involved; we are faced with a situation thatthe petitioning government agency or its authorized representatives to certify against forum shopping, calls for the exercise of our authority to act with discretion. In the exercise of this discretion, we havebecause they, and not the OSG, are in the best position to know if another case is pending before deemed it more prudent, as a matter of judicial policy in the present situation, to encourage the hearinganother court. The reason for this requirement was succinctly explained in Hon. Constantino-David et. al. of the appeal on the merits rather than to apply the rules of procedure in a very rigid, technical sensev. Pangandaman-Gania: that impedes the cause of justice.54

The fact that the OSG under the 1987 Administrative Code is the only lawyer for a government agency Our approach is a reminder that the rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate thewanting to file a petition or complaint does not automatically vest the OSG with the authority to execute attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application tending to frustrate, rather than promote substantialin its name the certificate of non-forum shopping for a client office. In some instances, these government justice, must always be avoided.55 The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every partyagencies have legal departments which inadvertently take legal matters requiring court representation litigant with a facially meritorious case the amplest opportunity for the proper determination of his or herinto their own hands without the OSG’s intervention. Consequently, the OSG would have no personal cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.56 It is a far better and more prudent course of action forknowledge of the history of a particular case so as to adequately execute the certificate of non-forum the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties the review of a meritorious case on appealshopping; and even if the OSG does have the relevant information, the courts on the other hand would rather than dispose of the case on technicalities and cause a grave injustice; the latter course of actionmay give the impression of speedy disposal of cases, but can only result in more delay and even In his Comment, SJO2 Almojuela argued that he had been deprived of due process during the BJMPmiscarriage of justice.57 investigation because he was not allowed to present his evidence and his witnesses, and was not accorded the trial-type proceedings that the prosecution panel enjoyed. Since he elected a formalOur liberal application of the Rules of Court in this case does not however mean that the OSG can cite investigation, SJO2 Almojuela asserts that he should have been permitted to require the attendance ofthis Decision as authority to verify and sign the certification for non-forum shopping in behalf of its client witnesses through compulsory processes.agencies. The OSG should take note of our decision in the cited Hon. Constantino-David et. al. v.Pangandaman-Gania for the requisites to be satisfied before it can verify and sign the certificate of non- We support the CA’s conclusion that SJO2 Almojuela was accorded the right to due process during theforum shopping for its client agencies. Rather than an authority in its favor, this Decision should serve as BJMP investigation. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings (such as the BJMPa case showing that the OSG had been warned about its observed laxity in following the rules on the investigation) is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsiderationcertification for non-forum shopping. Only the substantive merits of the CSC’s case saved the day in this of the action or ruling complained of.63 Where a party has been given the opportunity to appeal or seekcase for the OSG. reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.64

The CSC is the proper party to raise an In SJO2 Almojuela’s case, he was informed of the charges against him, and was given the opportunity to refute them in the counter-affidavit and motion for reconsideration he filed before the BJMP hearingappeal against the CA’s amended petition officer, in the appeal and motion for reconsideration he filed before the CSC, in his petition for review on certiorari, in his memorandum on appeal, and, finally, in the motion for reconsideration he filed before the CA.SJO2 Almojuela asserts that the CSC has no legal personality to challenge the CA’s amended decisionbecause it must maintain its impartiality as a judge and disciplining authority in controversies involvingpublic officers. He implores the Court to reconsider its ruling in Civil Service Commission v. In particular, SJO2 Almojuela admitted in his comment that he narrated in his counteraffidavit theDacoycoy,58 citing the arguments from Justice Romero’s dissenting opinion. circumstances that, to his knowledge, transpired immediately before Lao’s breakout.65 The Motion for Reconsideration to the CA’s original decision contained the additional piece of evidence that SJO2 Almojuela claimed would have exculpated him from liability: Captain Fermin Enriquez’s testimony duringMore than ten years have passed since the Court first recognized in Dacoycoy the CSC’s standing to his cross-examination in Criminal Case No. 3320236, filed against SJO2 Almojuela for conniving with orappeal the CA’s decisions reversing or modifying its resolutions seriously prejudicial to the civil service consenting to evasion under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code.66 This piece of evidence wassystem. Since then, the ruling in Dacoycoy has been subjected to clarifications and qualifications,59 but reiterated in the comment SJO2 Almojuela filed before this Court.67 Notably, SJO2 Almojuela repeteadlythe doctrine has remained the same:60 the CSC has standing as a real party in interest and can appeal mentioned ‘other witnesses and other documentary exhibits’ that he would have presented to absolvethe CA’s decisions modifying or reversing the CSC’s rulings, when the CA action would have an adverse him from liability,68 but the only piece of evidence he submitted in his Motion for Reconsideration andimpact on the integrity of the civil service. As the government’s central personnel agency, the CSC is Comment was Captain Enriquez’s testimony.tasked to establish a career service and promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service;61 it has a stake in ensuring that the proper disciplinaryaction is imposed on an erring public employee, and this stake would be adversely affected by a ruling These circumstances sufficiently convince us that SJO2 Almojuela had been given ample opportunity toabsolving or lightening the CSC-imposed penalty. Further, a decision that declares a public employee present his side, and whatever defects might have intervened during the BJMP investigation have beennot guilty of the charge against him would have no other appellant than the CSC. To be sure, it would cured by his subsequent filing of pleadings69 before the CSC, the CA, and before this Court.not be appealed by the public employee who has been absolved of the charge against him; neitherwould the complainant appeal the decision, as he acted merely as a witness for the government.62 We SJO2 Almojuela’s consent to Lao’sthus find no reason to disurb the settled Dacoycoy doctrine. escape from the Makati City Jail has beenIn the present case, the CSC appeals the CA’s amended decision, which modified the liability the formermeted against SJO2 Almojuela from grave misconduct to simple misconduct, and lowered the satisfactorily proven by substantial evidencecorresponding penalty from dismissal to three months suspension. Applying the Dacoycoy principles, theCSC has legal personality to appeal the CA’s amended decision as the CA significantly lowered SJO2Almojuela’s disciplinary sanction and thereby prevented the CSC from imposing the penalty it deemed We now proceed to the substantive issues.appropriate to impose on SJO2 Almojuela. The findings and conclusions below fully justify our liberalstance. We differ from the CA’s conclusion in its amended decision finding no clear evidence that SJO2 Almojuela had been directly involved in Lao’s escape. SJO2 Almojuela adopted this stance, and addedSJO2 Almojuela was afforded due process that Criminal Case No. 3320236, which was filed against him for facilitating Lao’s escape, has been dismissed. He also pointed out Captain Enriquez’s (one of the investigating officers) testimony in Criminal Case No. 3320236, where Captain Enriquez admitted that JO1 Pascual was the last personin the BJMP investigations seen in possession of the maingate’s keys, and that the gatekeepers JO1 Loyola and JO1 Robles should have been safekeeping the keys. Lastly, SJO2 Almojuela sought to discredit the testimonies of SJO2 Aquino, JO1 Loyola, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Robles for being hearsay, and questioned theadmissability of their affidavits as they were never offered as part of the BJMP prosecutors’ documentary Finally, we do not agree with SJO2 Almojuela’s assertion that the statements of SJO2 Aquino, JO1evidence. Loyola, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Robles in their affidavits should be disregarded for being hearsay as he failed to cross-examine them. It is well-settled that a formal or trial-type of hearing is not indespensible inAccording to the BJMP report, Lao most likely exited the jail compound through the main gate, administrative proceedings, and a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side suffices to meetconsidering that he was discovered to have disappeared at about the same time the warden left the jail the requirements of due process.74Technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings need not alwayson board his car (the BJMP report pegged the discovery of Lao’s escape 30 minutes after the warden apply.75 In Erece v. Macalingay et. al.,76 we affirmed the CA’s ruling finding the petitioner guilty ofleft, while the jail officers’ affidavits estimated it to have transpired 30 minutes before). A search and dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service despite his contention that he hadinspection of the barracks of suspected jail personnel resulted in the recovery of ten keys from SJO2 been denied his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. We held that the right to cross-Almojuela’s barracks, one of which matched the main gate’s padlock. This piece of evidence, when examine the other party’s witnesses is not an indispensable aspect of due process in administrativeconsidered along with other pieces of evidence presented before the BJMP investigation and the CSC, proceedings. Due process in these proceedings is not identical with "judicial process;" a trial in court isis sufficient to conclude that SJO2 Almojuela knew and consented to Lao’s getaway. not always essential in administrative due process.77 Moreover, we have consistently held that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.78 We find no reason in this case to depart from these principles.True, the CSC failed to present direct evidence proving that SJO2 Almojuela had been involved infacilitating Lao’s escape. But direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyondreasonable doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct In consenting to Lao’s escape, SJO2evideence.70 Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court: Almojuela is guilty of gross misconduct inSEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: the performance of his duties as Senior Jail(a) There is more than one circumstance; Officer II(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and We find SJO2 Almojuela guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of his duties as Senior Jail(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable Officer II. Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule ofdoubt. action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."79 Misconduct becomes grave if it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."80 In SJO2While this provision appears to refer only to criminal cases, we have applied its principles to Almojuela’s case, we hold it established by substantial evidence that he consented to Lao’s escape fromadministrative cases.71 To fulfill the third requisite, this Court in RE: AC NO. 04-AM-2002 (JOSEJINA the Makati City Jail. Thus, there was willful violation of his duty as Senior Jail Officer II to oversee the jailFRIA V. GEMILIANA DE LOS ANGELES),72 an En Banc decision, required that the circumstantial compound’s security, rendering him liable for gross misconduct.evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain that leads one to a fair and reasonableconclusion pointing to the person accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.73 Thecircumstantial evidence the CSC presented leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that, at the very SJO2 Almojuela is guilty of grossleast, SJO2 Almojuela consented to Lao’s getaway. The keys found in SJO2 Almojuela’s room fit thepadlock in the maingate, Lao’s most possible point of egress. The fact that these keys should be in the negligence in the performance of his dutiessafekeeping of JO1 Pascual and JO1 Robles does not clear SJO2 Almojuela from liability; on thecontrary, it should convince us of his involvement in Lao’s escape. It leads us to ask why the keys were as Senior Jail Officer IIfound in SJO2 Almojuela’s room, when the last person seen to possess the keys, and the personnel whowere supposed to safekeep them, was not SJO2 Almojuela. SJO2 Almojuela’s bare allegations that hewas set up cannot stand up against the presumption of regularity in the performance of the investigating Even assuming that SJO2 Almojuela had not consented to Lao’s getaway, adequate evidence showsofficers’ duty. This presumption, when considered with the following pieces of evidence, leads us to no that SJO2 Almojuela had been grossly negligent in the performance of his duties. Gross neglect of dutyother conclusion than SJO2 Almojuela’s implied consent to Lao’s escape. First, SJO2 Almojuela’s lax or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omittingattitude regarding Lao, whom he admitted seeing loittering around the jail’s premises at night and even to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with ausing JO1 Pascual’s celfone, both in contravention of BJMP rules and regulations. Second, SJO2 conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. In cases involvingAlmojuela lied when he stated in his affidavit that he only left the desk area at around 1:20 to 1:40 AM, public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.81when the testimonies of two other jail officers, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Loyola, show otherwise. Third,when Panayaman overheard the negotiations for Lao’s release between JO1 Pascual and the person he First, SJO2 Almojuela left the desk area from 1:30 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., with no explanation as to where hewas talking to in his celfone, Panayaman went to SJO2 Almojuela’s room but found that the door was went or why he had to leave his post. His contention that he stepped out from the desk area at 1:20 a.m.locked. and returned at 1:30 a.m. to take a snack is belied by the testimony of SJO1 Lagahit (the desk reliever) who testified that SJO2 Almojuela returned at 3 a.m.; and by the testimony of JO1 Loyola that the deskarea was unmanned between 2:00 to 3:00 a.m. At 3 a.m., when he was established to be at the deskarea, SJO2 Almojuela was even seen sleeping on a folding chair. The situation was thus one ofcompounded neglect.

As shift supervisor and one of the highest ranking jail officers on duty at the time of the prison break,SJO2 Almojuela had the responsibility to oversee the security of the jail compound and to ensure that allmembers of the shift were performing their tasks. SJO2 Almojuela’s acts of leaving his post for twohours, without any adequate reason, and sleeping afterwards show a wanton disregard for hisresponsibilities as shift supervisor. SJO2 Almojuela’s neglect of his duties considerably contributed tothe lax prison environment that allowed Lao not only to escape, but to even bring his belongings withhim. During SJO2 Almojuela’s absence, JO1 Loyola saw that the control gates for the detention cellswere open, and the desk area was unmanned.

Second, SJO2 Almojuela tolerated the blatant disregard of BJMP rules and regulations by the jail officersunder his supervision. He admitted that he saw Lao loittering in the jail compound in the wee hours ofthe night, and did nothing about it. Worse, SJO2 Almojuela was even seen talking to Lao and JO1Pascual at the desk area, and other inmates have been seen conversing at the desk area. The fact thatJO1 Pascual accompanied Lao could not absolve SJO2 Almojuela from liability. According to BJMPrules and regulations, all inmates must be kept inside their cells after visiting hours. During night time,compelling reasons and I or emergency situations must exist before the inmates can be allowed to leavetheir cells. Thus, contrary to the conclusion in the CA's amended decision, it was highly irregular for Laoto be outside his cell, regardless of whether he is accompanied by a jail officer.

These circumstances show that SJ02 Almojuela, as the desk officer and shift supervisor, was grosslynegligent in discharging his duties, which contributed in Lao's surreptitious escape from the Makati CityJail.

Under Section 52 (A)(2) and (3), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in theCivil Service,82 both gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty are grave offenses punishable bydismissal from the service for the first offense. Our conclusions fully justify the imposition of this penaltyand the reinstatement of the CA's original penalty of dismissal from the service.

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition. The amended decision of theCourt of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Arlie Almojuela is found guilty of grossmisconduct and gross neglect of duty, and is hereby D DISMISSED from the service.